|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Pacifist Christians are hypocrites if they call the cops?
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
[QUOTE]originally posted by Martin:
Pacifist Christians are hypocrites if they call the cops?
Absolutely!
From this thread.
So when crime is being committed in front of me, public disorder, common assault, actual to grievous bodily harm, I should just squeeze in between the protagonists and chant Hare Krishna? And not film it?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Who among us always lives up to their own ideals? That person can call the rest of us hypocrites.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I'm taking an unusual "early warning" step here.
I'll give this thread a pass for now, since there is certainly scope for discussing the relationship between pacifism and the forces of law and order.
But please keep the discussion away from C4 and C3 boundaries. This is not an opportunity for re-opening personal hostilities already the subject of a ruling in the other thread.
Any sign of that will attract a formal warning.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
That may be nice social behaviour, RuthW, but sidesteps the interesting question whether calling the police is hypocritical with regards to ideals of pacifism. After all, people do attempt to live up to those ideals, so it is important to know what is compatible with them. Whether one fails is a different matter.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
[QUOTE]originally posted by Martin:
Pacifist Christians are hypocrites if they call the cops?
Absolutely!
From this thread.
So when crime is being committed in front of me, public disorder, common assault, actual to grievous bodily harm, I should just squeeze in between the protagonists and chant Hare Krishna? And not film it?
ISTM that BA doesn't know what the police force is there to do, so let me (patronisingly) explain.
The social contract society at large has with the police force is this: we will not take the law into our own hands, you will come when you are called.
That's it. The police are there, ought to be there, to minimise violence, both on the part of offenders, and the offended public. Therefore, pacifists calling the police is exactly the thing they should be doing and there's nothing hypocritical about it whatsoever. It increases the peace, not degrades it, and society is more peaceful and less violent because of it.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
There are degrees of pacifism. It's not the same as complete non-violence. There is a difference between an unwillingness to use proportionate violence against an individual or group of individuals who are currently presenting an immediate and direct threat to someone, and an unwillingness to take part in war, which often goes a long way further than this.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Now there's an armor piercing question!
If pacifism's their personal creed only, then no, they're not. If they think everyone ought to share in it, then yes, they are, as they're committing violence by proxy.
Police everywhere enforce the law, with the emphasis squarely on force. If sufficiently threatened, even unarmed cops will get dispatch to send over a SWAT team, who're prepared to kill if necessary.
That so many pacifists call the cops (and, when SHTF, so many advocates of gun control slam 911 and pray for more guns to hit the scene) ought surely to call that philosophy into question.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Now there's an armor piercing question!
That's funny. It's looks more like a false dilemma to me.
There's a whole range of options between "doing nothing because I'm a hanky-wringing pacifist" and "say hello to my little friend". Including calling the cops, who probably don't really like shooting people most of the time.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Now there's an armor piercing question!
That's funny. It's looks more like a false dilemma to me.
There's a whole range of options between "doing nothing because I'm a hanky-wringing pacifist" and "say hello to my little friend". Including calling the cops, who probably don't really like shooting people most of the time.
Of course cops don't like shooting people, as they're not, by and large, psychos, but decent folk doing a tough job. Their scruples are, however, irrelevant to the pacifist's dilemma. However reluctantly, cops are willing and able to use violence, up to and including deadly force.
Like I said, if the pacifist doesn't believe their philosophy should be universal, they're not a hypocrite. But if they do want to universalize their beliefs, what other word is there for someone who says one thing, but does another?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
This would appear to be another pond difference. In the UK, calling 999 will not automatically result in a shoot-out because British police are not usually armed.
It *might* if you tell them that the criminals have guns, because we do have armed response units who occasionally shoot people. But officers responding to a routine call will be armed with nothing more than a big stick (aka truncheon) and their handcuffs.
There may be pacifists who object to violent criminals being handcuffed and hauled off to jail, but I've never actually met one IRL.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Like I said, if the pacifist doesn't believe their philosophy should be universal, they're not a hypocrite. But if they do want to universalize their beliefs, what other word is there for someone who says one thing, but does another?
I think we're now moving seamlessly to the "No True Pacifist" fallacy.
The obvious thing to do is to a) find some pacifists, b) listen to what they have to say, and c) try not to tell them what they believe.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Ah, the technical pacifist (I should really be paying TV Tropes commission for this thread ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ).
Pacifism, as satyagraha crystallized, is premised on the idea that violence should not be met in kind, but should be met with passive resistance, to trigger the aggressor's better nature. It's a position of extraordinary courage, and sometimes, it can work. Oft times, it doesn't.
Saying, "Oh, it's fine for a police cruiser to screech onto the scene, and for officers to jump out and beat/tase/gas the aggressor into submission, just so long as they don't kill him," goes against everything pacifism stands for.
If such technicalities must be resorted to in order to escape the consequences of a belief, why hold the belief at all?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I think we're now moving seamlessly to the "No True Pacifist" fallacy.
The obvious thing to do is to a) find some pacifists, b) listen to what they have to say, and c) try not to tell them what they believe.
Floor's open!
How d'you reconcile pacifism with violence?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
That's it. The police are there, ought to be there, to minimise violence, both on the part of offenders, and the offended public. Therefore, pacifists calling the police is exactly the thing they should be doing and there's nothing hypocritical about it whatsoever. It increases the peace, not degrades it, and society is more peaceful and less violent because of it.
By the same argument, we could say that a UN sanctioned military invasion of a warmongering country is a "pacifist" action, since it arguably increases the overall peace of the world - if likely at the price of a sizeable (civilian and military) body count and large scale destruction of the country's infrastructure. I'm not saying that it is impossible to "make more peace by some war", I'm saying that we do not call people who support such utilitarian wars "pacifists". That's just not what that word means in common usage. Consequently, the above analysis is just plain invalid.
The point of asking about the police is of course simply to project the ideals of pacifism from the national to the personal sphere, and secondarily to question whether delegated violence is more licit than committed violence.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Well no, some pacifists tell us that's what they believe. I listen, and relay. Don't go shooting the messenger. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Same word can cover many things, so like I asked, how d'you fit violence into a pacifist worldview?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm not a pacifist.
Well that makes two of us, then. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
That's it. The police are there, ought to be there, to minimise violence, both on the part of offenders, and the offended public. Therefore, pacifists calling the police is exactly the thing they should be doing and there's nothing hypocritical about it whatsoever. It increases the peace, not degrades it, and society is more peaceful and less violent because of it.
By the same argument, we could say that a UN sanctioned military invasion of a warmongering country is a "pacifist" action, since it arguably increases the overall peace of the world - if likely at the price of a sizeable (civilian and military) body count and large scale destruction of the country's infrastructure. I'm not saying that it is impossible to "make more peace by some war", I'm saying that we do not call people who support such utilitarian wars "pacifists". That's just not what that word means in common usage. Consequently, the above analysis is just plain invalid.
The point of asking about the police is of course simply to project the ideals of pacifism from the national to the personal sphere, and secondarily to question whether delegated violence is more licit than committed violence.
Yup, if the word "pacifist" is serve any purpose, it must signify a belief system that takes a distinctive view of violence. If it just means "proportionate violence in a just cause," it's pointless.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm not a pacifist.
Well that makes two of us, then.
I'm not, however, against pacifism.
But the false dilemma is "no use of force under any circumstances" against... what? Are you suggesting that if you're not a pacifist, then perhaps it's "kill them all, God will know His own" (ah, Catholic theology at its finest).
Pacifism is a sliding scale, and how people self-identify as pacifists is a matter for them. For all I know, I may be more pacifistic than some pacifists. But to say pacifists are hypocrites for calling the police is as bizarre as saying non-pacifists are hypocrites for calling the police - non-pacifists should of course be sorting out their problems with bottles, bricks and bats like decent, God-fearing men ought.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I was at a very large, family, church - de jure pacifist - conference and a heckler stood up 10 yards from me with a knife. I moved toward him but my wife objected. The ushers all moved in very fast, surrounded him and disarmed him without inappropriate force. Excellent job. Should they have just surrounded him to be true pacifists? Were they hypocrites?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
This reminds me of Lenin's adage that the modern nation state consists of 'special bodies of armed men'. Ultimately, as Byron is saying, the state has a monopoly of violence, which is a good thing, as it ensures (for the most part), civil peace. In other words, in London we don't have different militias competing with each other (ignoring various gangs, of course).
Calling the cops is to have recourse to the state, really, and this monopoly. Not only will the cops, in extremis, use violence, they might carry you off to the cells, by brute force.
But it depends on the kind of pacifist you are; I suppose a lot of them are like those vegetarians who eat fish.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erik
Shipmate
# 11406
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Saying, "Oh, it's fine for a police cruiser to screech onto the scene, and for officers to jump out and beat/tase/gas the aggressor into submission, just so long as they don't kill him," goes against everything pacifism stands for.
Is this, in your opinion, a typical police response? I would have thought that in most cases a police officer would try to use as little force as nessesary to stop whatever crime is happening and apprehend the criminal. The police are supposed to be charged with 'keeping the peace' after all.
--------------------
One day I will think of something worth saying here.
Posts: 96 | From: Leeds, UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
Interesting question. I suppose a lot of the debate has to do with how pacifism is defined and what the goal of that pacifism might be.
If the goal is to be a pure as the new fallen snow calling the cops is a fall from the high throne upon which you can sit if you are that pure. On the other hand, such a stance has some - a tiny bit - problematic consequences. The absolute pure pacifism can be an excuse for sitting upon a high throne of righteousness and judging others as inferior for not being as pacifist as one's self.
Such a form of pacifism seems to be a problem in and unto itself.
Another pacifist response might be to try to prevent violence by aiding the escape of the intended victim. No harm to others and the kind of service to others that allows people to get beyond themselves and be present to the world the way it is, rather than the way we think it must be to make us happy.
Still, a pure pacifist might respond that the only person the pacifist can control is themself and their example is the best gift they can give to a violent world.
Calling in the police means that violence might happen. (Vilifying police seems to be a popular sport practiced by people who do not face the issues a police officer faces on a regular basis.) It does not mean violence will happen because of the police. And there are some situations where it is certain violence will happen if the police are not called.
Is it worth compromising your principals to save others from violence? How certain of the goodness of your principles are you if you are willing to set others suffer for your principles?
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Is it worth compromising your principals to save others from violence? How certain of the goodness of your principles are you if you are willing to set others suffer for your principles?
If your principals encompass such actions, how are you compromising them?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
This would appear to be another pond difference. In the UK, calling 999 will not automatically result in a shoot-out because British police are not usually armed.
It *might* if you tell them that the criminals have guns, because we do have armed response units who occasionally shoot people. But officers responding to a routine call will be armed with nothing more than a big stick (aka truncheon) and their handcuffs.
There may be pacifists who object to violent criminals being handcuffed and hauled off to jail, but I've never actually met one IRL.
Quite. I know many pacifists and I don't think any would hesitate in calling the police if a crime was being committed. I think they may hesitate in the US, depending on the situation but not in the UK unless they knew an armed response unit would definitely come.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Last time I called the police it was because I spotted someone climbing into the downstairs window of the flat opposite. Most likely the householder had locked himself out but I am sure that he would much rather have had a couple of police officers politely asking for ID than come home and find the TV and the stereo gone.
I'm not, myself, a pacifist but most of the pacifists I know tend to have a principled objection to the use of tanks, dive bombers and automatic weaponry in the settlement of international affairs. Not to the prevention of burglary. So if I found out that the chairman of the Peace Pledge Union had been in the area and made a similar phone call I wouldn't, on those grounds, think that he was guilty of bad faith.
If you had a scenario where, say, hostages had been taken and SO19 had been called in that might constitute more of a philosophical problem if one's pacifism was based on an absolute prohibition on the taking of human life but it is possible to identify a number of demerits to the use of warfare to rectify an injustice which don't exist when it comes to a police sniper taking out a criminal or terrorist in, say, a hostage situation (the death of conscripts and civilians springs immediately to mind). It is hardly difficult to frame a pacifist position which is hostile to organised warfare and yet allows the police to use deadly force as an option of last resort.
So this non-pacifist says that accusations of hypocrisy leveled at pacifists are basically nonsense. It's intellectually lazy (to put it politely) to assume that because you disagree with someone that they must be terminally stupid.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
The OP is silly. Unless you have an 'us versus them' situation. We don't. My last encounter with the police was at the climate march on the weekend. We compared bicycles. They have really nice bikes. Which I envy.
We call them peace officers. In fact, those who don't call the police when these public servants are needed are the hypocrites.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Gildas:
If you had a scenario where, say, hostages had been taken and SO19 had been called in that might constitute more of a philosophical problem if one's pacifism was based on an absolute prohibition on the taking of human life but it is possible to identify a number of demerits to the use of warfare to rectify an injustice which don't exist when it comes to a police sniper taking out a criminal or terrorist in, say, a hostage situation (the death of conscripts and civilians springs immediately to mind). It is hardly difficult to frame a pacifist position which is hostile to organised warfare and yet allows the police to use deadly force as an option of last resort.
Nonsense
All the pacifist is saying is that violence up to the taking of lives to protect my life and property and the lives and property of those around me is justified. However, the protection of the lives of people in foreign lands if it means the taking of the lives of those trying to kill them is immoral. Yeah, I call that a load of self righteous hypocrisy.
That some of the soldiers might be conscripts is irrelevant. What happens when that same army of transcripts march into your country and starts killing people? If you are willing to allow a police sniper to kill people, do you expect me to believe that you wouldn't want the military to shoot all those conscripts to keep them from killing you and yours? If the answer is no, the army of transcripts must be protected at all costs then why allow the police to shoot anybody? Maybe the person killing people is doing so under duress.
My ethics professor in seminary claimed to be a 2/3 pacifist. You can use violence only when the tanks are on your street. Well, that's not a belief in nonviolence at all. He was willing to use violence to protect himself, his family, and his neighbors but nobody else. At best, he was selfish. More than likely, he was a coward. It is easy to sit in a nation that is a super power and say stupid stuff like that. No doubt he would condemn the use of violence as the US military killed the theoretical enemy in tanks long before they got anywhere close to his street. But...he wouldn't have to worry about what to do when they got to his street, now would he? Besides, if you are willing to use violence at any point, then waiting until it's truly self defense is rather stupid.
Not all police in the UK carry firearms? So what? Even the ones who don't carry firearms are willing to use violence. Push comes to shove and the UK police will shoot people just like any other police force. Push them further and the Royal Marines come to back them up. Just ask the IRA. Take over an embassy and the SAS shows up. I'm sorry if that's a pacifist approach then pacifism has no meaning at all.
Now, it is a perfectly rational foreign policy to avoid entanglement in foreign wars and to not go abroad seeking monsters to destroy. I'm all for going back to it. However, foreign policy realism is as selfish as it gets.
I sure as heck wouldn't attribute it to Jesus. Pacifism lite isn't scriptural either. Turn the other cheek means turn the other cheek. If a person hits you, don't hit that person back. Where does Jesus tell you to call somebody else to come and use violence to stop the other person from hitting you?
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
That's it. The police are there, ought to be there, to minimise violence, both on the part of offenders, and the offended public. Therefore, pacifists calling the police is exactly the thing they should be doing and there's nothing hypocritical about it whatsoever. It increases the peace, not degrades it, and society is more peaceful and less violent because of it.
By the same argument, we could say that a UN sanctioned military invasion of a warmongering country is a "pacifist" action, since it arguably increases the overall peace of the world - if likely at the price of a sizeable (civilian and military) body count and large scale destruction of the country's infrastructure. I'm not saying that it is impossible to "make more peace by some war", I'm saying that we do not call people who support such utilitarian wars "pacifists". That's just not what that word means in common usage. Consequently, the above analysis is just plain invalid.
The point of asking about the police is of course simply to project the ideals of pacifism from the national to the personal sphere, and secondarily to question whether delegated violence is more licit than committed violence.
This
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Last time I called the police it was because I spotted someone climbing into the downstairs window of the flat opposite. Most likely the householder had locked himself out but I am sure that he would much rather have had a couple of police officers politely asking for ID than come home and find the TV and the stereo gone.
Except for Professor Henry Louis Gates at Harvard. When his neighbor did the same after he'd locked himself out of his home, he was arrested.
CNN - Charges dropped against Harvard professor
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
I think the original post is imprecise. What does this hypothetical situation involve? Do we have
--- a stolen car?
--- a missing wallet?
--- a cat stuck up a tree?
--- a landlord-tenant dispute?
--- sounds of a violent struggle next door?
--- a random bullet that came in through a window?
--- discovery of a deceased heart attack victim?
--- an enraged employee who has just been fired?
I think the list could easily be much longer.
We don't call the police only because of violence but also for many other reasons. They are part of our society's conflict-resolution mechanism. There are other services also available. Our taxes pay for them; why shouldn't we use them?
Of course, in many situations, we are legally required to report various events to authorities of one sort or another. Must the extreme pacifist necessarily be a lawbreaker?
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
This would appear to be another pond difference. In the UK, calling 999 will not automatically result in a shoot-out because British police are not usually armed.
It *might* if you tell them that the criminals have guns, because we do have armed response units who occasionally shoot people. But officers responding to a routine call will be armed with nothing more than a big stick (aka truncheon) and their handcuffs.
There may be pacifists who object to violent criminals being handcuffed and hauled off to jail, but I've never actually met one IRL.
Quite. I know many pacifists and I don't think any would hesitate in calling the police if a crime was being committed. I think they may hesitate in the US, depending on the situation but not in the UK unless they knew an armed response unit would definitely come.
And what would the pacifist's moral position be if they failed to call the police because they felt the police would kill the criminal, and the criminal went on to kill an innocent bystander?
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Surely that would be a tactical error not a moral error.
I disagree. If someone fails to call the police when they can see someone is potentially a danger to others then they are partially responsible.
I understand the sentiment of a pacifist not wanting to call the police in parts of the US if for example a black person was acting in a threatening manner, in case the police did exactly what the pacifist was afraid of and shoot them.
But the pacifist must recognise that the black person - in this example, it could be anybody though - was a threat and to protect the wider community the pacifist must call the police regardless of the police's potential response.
I think the above holds even if the pacifist believes they are the only one being threatened. If the violent person is allowed to go on without the police being called, surely they will still represent a danger later on if they meet someone else.
The pacifist may be safe in their home when the violent person meets someone innocent who becomes their victim. It the pacifist had called the police that innocent may not have become a victim.
[ 24. September 2014, 17:38: Message edited by: deano ]
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
And what would the pacifist's moral position be if they failed to call the police because they felt the police would kill the criminal, and the criminal went on to kill an innocent bystander?
And what would the non-pacifist's moral position be if they called the police because they felt the criminal had a gun, and the police went on to kill an innocent man? Which, let's face it, has actually happened, rather then some weird-arse hypothetical.
I've been thinking about this on and off all day. My tentative conclusion is that we are afraid of pacifism, afraid that our faith calls us to pacifism, afraid that we are being asked to give violence up as a solution, and because we are so wedded to 'good' violence we can't stand the thought of being seen as weak or cowardly. Hence the strong, almost visceral hatred of pacifism and pacifists.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
And what would the pacifist's moral position be if they failed to call the police because they felt the police would kill the criminal, and the criminal went on to kill an innocent bystander?
And what would the non-pacifist's moral position be if they called the police because they felt the criminal had a gun, and the police went on to kill an innocent man? Which, let's face it, has actually happened, rather then some weird-arse hypothetical.
I don't think it is a "weird-arse" hypothetical situation. If you turn a blind eye so someone acting in a violent way then you are responsible if they go on to hurt someone.
If my post is hypothetical, then it's only because the OP is equally hypothetical.
In your example, are you suggesting we shouldn't call the police if we suspect someone has a gun?
I think that would certainly be an act of omission that would make you culpable - Pacifist or not!
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
And what would the pacifist's moral position be if they failed to call the police because they felt the police would kill the criminal, and the criminal went on to kill an innocent bystander?
And what would the non-pacifist's moral position be if they called the police because they felt the criminal had a gun, and the police went on to kill an innocent man? Which, let's face it, has actually happened, rather then some weird-arse hypothetical.
I've been thinking about this on and off all day. My tentative conclusion is that we are afraid of pacifism, afraid that our faith calls us to pacifism, afraid that we are being asked to give violence up as a solution, and because we are so wedded to 'good' violence we can't stand the thought of being seen as weak or cowardly. Hence the strong, almost visceral hatred of pacifism and pacifists.
I don't feel my faith calls me to be a pacifist. I've explained why several dozen times. On the thread that spawned the OP, Martin even admitted that neither scripture, tradition, nor reason taken as a whole teach pacifism. To me, that's game, set, and match.
Hate pacifists? I don't hate pacifists. Smug, self righteous hypocrites do annoy me but I don't hate them.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I don't think it is a "weird-arse" hypothetical situation. If you turn a blind eye so someone acting in a violent way then you are responsible if they go on to hurt someone.
If my post is hypothetical, then it's only because the OP is equally hypothetical.
In your example, are you suggesting we shouldn't call the police if we suspect someone has a gun?
I think that would certainly be an act of omission that would make you culpable - Pacifist or not!
In what way are you responsible if someone violent hurts someone else? If you were with that person, and they inflicted violence on a third party, you might be tried on a 'joint enterprise' charge. In UK law, we don't have a "Duty to Rescue" clause.
So if the law doesn't recognise that we're responsible, where do you get the idea from?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Smug, self righteous hypocrites do annoy me but I don't hate them.
Trust me, smug, self righteous hypocrites annoy everyone...
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Surely that would be a tactical error not a moral error.
I disagree. If someone fails to call the police when they can see someone is potentially a danger to others then they are partially responsible.
As you imply, either way once has seen such a situation, one has some moral responsibility. Presuming that one is truly trying to reduce the amount of violence and wrong-doing in our society, I'd say that what tactics one takes does not change one's moral qualities. If one does or doesn't call the police for the wrong reasons--say one would have called the police if it were one's house being burgled, but decides on pacifism because it's only the neighbor's--then one is morally responsible. Actually trying counts. And before you disagree about trying, think of a scenario where say a child of yours tried to do something but failed because of insufficient knowledge that they could not have had. If you wouldn't blame the child in that circumstance, how can you logically blame a person who truly believed that they were minimizing violence? Mind one can hold them responsible for any ill they do, including legally, and should. (For that reason, I have little sympathy for protesters who try to escape arrest. People who want to break the law as a protest should not try to escape punishment because that's part of the point--to show society what its bad laws are doing!)
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I don't think it is a "weird-arse" hypothetical situation. If you turn a blind eye so someone acting in a violent way then you are responsible if they go on to hurt someone.
If my post is hypothetical, then it's only because the OP is equally hypothetical.
In your example, are you suggesting we shouldn't call the police if we suspect someone has a gun?
I think that would certainly be an act of omission that would make you culpable - Pacifist or not!
In what way are you responsible if someone violent hurts someone else? If you were with that person, and they inflicted violence on a third party, you might be tried on a 'joint enterprise' charge. In UK law, we don't have a "Duty to Rescue" clause.
So if the law doesn't recognise that we're responsible, where do you get the idea from?
I'm not talking about the law.
I am saying that if you suspect someone has a gun and you don't call the police, then you are morally at fault if they really do have a gun and go on to kill someone.
JC said she wouldn't call the police in certain parts of the US in case. I wanted to make the point that if you suspect someone has a gun and they actually do, and you do nothing, then you are - pacifist or not - morally guilty of faiclitating any subsequent acts of violence.
As a non-pacifist I would be morally culpable, and would no doubt feel bad.
But I am asking what would a pacifist feel if they had avoided calling the police because they didn't want to bring violence upon a fellow human being, and that fellow human being took advantage of that pacific response by killing someone else.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
All the pacifist is saying is that violence up to the taking of lives to protect my life and property and the lives and property of those around me is justified. However, the protection of the lives of people in foreign lands if it means the taking of the lives of those trying to kill them is immoral. Yeah, I call that a load of self righteous hypocrisy.
That some of the soldiers might be conscripts is irrelevant. What happens when that same army of transcripts march into your country and starts killing people? If you are willing to allow a police sniper to kill people, do you expect me to believe that you wouldn't want the military to shoot all those conscripts to keep them from killing you and yours? If the answer is no, the army of transcripts must be protected at all costs then why allow the police to shoot anybody? Maybe the person killing people is doing so under duress.
My ethics professor in seminary claimed to be a 2/3 pacifist. You can use violence only when the tanks are on your street. Well, that's not a belief in nonviolence at all. He was willing to use violence to protect himself, his family, and his neighbors but nobody else. At best, he was selfish. More than likely, he was a coward. It is easy to sit in a nation that is a super power and say stupid stuff like that. No doubt he would condemn the use of violence as the US military killed the theoretical enemy in tanks long before they got anywhere close to his street. But...he wouldn't have to worry about what to do when they got to his street, now would he? Besides, if you are willing to use violence at any point, then waiting until it's truly self defense is rather stupid.
Not all police in the UK carry firearms? So what? Even the ones who don't carry firearms are willing to use violence. Push comes to shove and the UK police will shoot people just like any other police force. Push them further and the Royal Marines come to back them up. Just ask the IRA. Take over an embassy and the SAS shows up. I'm sorry if that's a pacifist approach then pacifism has no meaning at all.
As I said, I am not a pacifist. However that doesn't alter the fact that there are number of problems with your argument.
Firstly, the United Kingdom has been in danger of invasion on approximately 3 occasions in the last five hundred or so years - the Armada in 1588, the Napoleonic Wars in the early 1800s if memory serves and 1940. I don't think the US has been in much danger since we torched the White House in 1812. Certainly some wars engaged in by the UK or the US have involved what one might describe as the 'right to protect' but one would hardly describe the entire activity of the British and American Military during this period as falling under that particular heading. So it's simply not the case that pacifists spend all their time objecting to sending the military to defend the innocent or endeavouring to prevent Nazi tanks from rolling up Whitehall or parking on the White House lawn. I'm not sure what a pacifist would advocate in those particular situations but they are hardly typical. I realise in these situations one is addressing a time warp in which it is invariably 1939 and one's interlocutor is Winston Churchill. But trust me, dear heart, it ain't and you aren't.
Secondly, I'm not sure what the exact name is for the logical fallacy you are committing but I'm pretty sure that it is a logical fallacy to suggest that if you think that it's all right to call the police when a couple of local hoodlums are spraying racist insults on the wall of Mr Patel's 7/11 Newsagent one is thereby committed to supporting the Falklands War any more than being committed to supporting the Falklands War (as I did) commits one to supporting the invasion of Iraq or supporting the invasion of Iraq commits one to supporting the nuking of Mecca to teach the Muslims a lesson. If you imagine the use of force as a continuum with a nursery assistant preventing Tarquin from bashing Guinevere over the head with a toy train at one end and the nuking of Mecca at another the question becomes where one draws the line. If it isn't self-evidently absurd to draw the line where you would draw it or where I would draw it, how is it self-evidently absurd to draw it at a point before.
Thirdly, the use of force by the police involves collateral damage much more rarely than when it is used in warfare. Given that there are very few virgins in armed response units that ought to give one pause. And even if one holds that it is legitimate to kill conscripts in the course of a just war (as I do) it is still the case that it is effectively a choice of evils. It's a somewhat excessive use of the slippery slope argument, by the way, to suggest that calling out the fuzz is the thin end of the wedge leading to the involvement of the Special Air Service.
Finally, accusations of cowardice are rarely admirable and are somewhat risible coming from members of the clergy who, in the event of a 'Red Dawn' scenario coming into play would be a protected occcupation anyway. Let's face it, none of us is likely to be engaged in a glorious but futile rearguard action any time soon so we can all cut out the faux heroics.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I am saying that if you suspect someone has a gun and you don't call the police, then you are morally at fault if they really do have a gun and go on to kill someone.
Morally at fault of what? The person who kills is at fault. What if the person doesn't have a gun and is killed (as has actually happened)? Are you morally at fault there? If so, of what? If not, then why not? Most of the police defences in shooting unarmed members of the public wearily revolve around "I thought he was reaching for a gun", which subsequently never existed.
quote:
But I am asking what would a pacifist feel if they had avoided calling the police because they didn't want to bring violence upon a fellow human being, and that fellow human being took advantage of that pacific response by killing someone else.
I imagine they would see it as a great loss, brought about by violence. Which would be true. But you'd have to find a pacifist to ask. You, on the other hand, are here.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I'm a near-pacifist, I guess you could call me a last-resortist. In the Netherlands, I wouldn't hesitate the call the police because I trust from experience that they have a last-resortist approach too. So, no contradiction there.
Here in Brazil I would be more hesitant to call the police on some occasions.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Would Jesus have ridden a tank through Baghdad? Where, on the hawkish side of Christainity, is the line drawn?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Gildas:
So it's simply not the case that pacifists spend all their time objecting to sending the military to defend the innocent or endeavouring to prevent Nazi tanks from rolling up Whitehall or parking on the White House lawn. I'm not sure what a pacifist would advocate in those particular situations but they are hardly typical.
Doesn't matter if its typical or not. It is simply inconsistent to argue that violence on your behalf is justified but violence on behalf of others is not. Doing so is hypocritical. Scripture doesn't provide an ounce of justification for making such a distinction either.
quote:
originally posted by Gildas:
Secondly, I'm not sure what the exact name is for the logical fallacy you are committing but I'm pretty sure that it is a logical fallacy to suggest that if you think that it's all right to call the police when a couple of local hoodlums are spraying racist insults on the wall of Mr Patel's 7/11 Newsagent one is thereby committed to supporting the Falklands War any more than being committed to supporting the Falklands War (as I did) commits one to supporting the invasion of Iraq or supporting the invasion of Iraq commits one to supporting the nuking of Mecca to teach the Muslims a lesson.
It would be a non sequitur if that's what I'm saying. I'm not saying that. On the contrary, if opposing the War in Iraq makes one a pacifist, then I'm a pacifist. Pacifism as it is being defined on this thread is not functionally different from Just War.
quote:
originally posted by Gildas:
If you imagine the use of force as a continuum with a nursery assistant preventing Tarquin from bashing Guinevere over the head with a toy train at one end and the nuking of Mecca at another the question becomes where one draws the line. If it isn't self-evidently absurd to draw the line where you would draw it or where I would draw it, how is it self-evidently absurd to draw it at a point before.
Where you draw the moral line must have some justification. Jesus said turn the other cheek. How can that text be used as justification for using violence to defend oneself but not others when the passage is clearly talking about violence against oneself and not others? You can't make such an absurd argument without doing violence to the text.
quote:
originally posted by Gildas:
It's a somewhat excessive use of the slippery slope argument, by the way, to suggest that calling out the fuzz is the thin end of the wedge leading to the involvement of the Special Air Service.
Not really. A comparison was being made between US and UK police departments. Both the US and UK police departments will use violence to enforce the law. The UK in recent memory even used the Royal Marines and SAS to do so.
quote:
originally posted by Gildas:
Finally, accusations of cowardice are rarely admirable and are somewhat risible coming from members of the clergy who, in the event of a 'Red Dawn' scenario coming into play would be a protected occcupation anyway. Let's face it, none of us is likely to be engaged in a glorious but futile rearguard action any time soon so we can all cut out the faux heroics.
No, I don't imagine myself leading a rearguard action either but then I don't morally object to my government using violence to prevent the need for a rearguard action in the first place. I suspect my ethics prof. knew the tanks would never make it to his block. And that's the point. Besides, cowardice was only one of the options I gave. Stupid was also an option. Brave and stupid aren't mutually exclusive.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
JC said she wouldn't call the police in certain parts of the US in case. I wanted to make the point that if you suspect someone has a gun and they actually do, and you do nothing, then you are - pacifist or not - morally guilty of faiclitating any subsequent acts of violence.
As a non-pacifist I would be morally culpable, and would no doubt feel bad.
But I am asking what would a pacifist feel if they had avoided calling the police because they didn't want to bring violence upon a fellow human being, and that fellow human being took advantage of that pacific response by killing someone else.
What if you call the police and they kill an innocent man?
John Crawford
What about "open carry" people ?
Open carry
Is that a good way to be "non-pacifist"?
I still remember attending a pro immigration rally in Arizona a couple of years ago. The people exercising their "second amendment right" to intimidate people did not make many friends there but police did not mind.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
